I am confused as to what ruling was used on Na's drop on 18 yesterday. I 'assumed' he took a drop because he would have had to stand on the cart path to hit his shot. He then dropped onto and played from the cart path.I though that if you took relief from an obstacle like GUR and such you had to take complete relief?

He gets relief from an immovable obstruction if it interferes with his stance or his swing. Apparently Na thought the cart path interfered with his stance, but not his swing.

++++++++++++++++

NOPE! He stood on the path when he hit the shot!

IF he had declared interference with his stance, he would have be required to take "complete relief" from the immovable obstruction, as Rule 24 states:

• b. ReliefExcept when the ball is in a water hazard or a lateral water hazard, a player may take relief from interference by an immovable obstruction as follows:

(i) Through the Green: If the ball lies through the green, the player must lift the ball and drop it, without penalty, within one club-length of and not nearer the hole than the nearest point of relief. The nearest point of relief must not be in a hazard or on a putting green. When the ball is dropped within one club-length of the nearest point of relief, the ball must first strike a part of the course at a spot that avoids interference by the immovable obstruction and is not in a hazard and not on a putting green.

If you had watched the whole incident, you would have noted that Na dropped his ball on the path.

Sorry, I misunderstood. (I didn't watch because we don't get NBC in HD in my state.)

But rule 24 doesn't require him to take complete relief from the obstruction. He merely needs to drop the ball at a spot that avoids interference from it.

And I didn't see the drop, but in the photographs you can see a pretty sharp curb on the cart path. If the curb had been interfering with his swing he certainly was entitled to relief from it, and he could have dropped the ball on the cart path at a spot that avoided the interference.

And I note he used a hybrid, which would be pretty easy to hit from a cart path.

What was it Harvey Penick used to say? "If you're looking for a ball in the woods always bring your 2 iron along. You might get lucky and lose it."

I wasn't quite in the woods. We have a line of poplar trees seperating the 8th from the practice ground. They were planted close together to form a green wall that a ball can't pass through. Hooking off the 8th tee always results in disaster. Usually because you hear that little voice in your head saying "Yeah, you can do this"

OK, I finally found a video of the shot. I guess I misunderstood the situation.

There's a lively discussion going on about the decision. Apparently the announcers agreed with me, that Na was taking relief from the curb of the cart path.

The next day The Golf Channel took it up. They agreed with you, that he took relief from ground under repair.

Looking at where the ball lay, I'd have to conclude you're right. If he were taking relief from the curb it wouldn't seem that his nearest point of relief could be on the cart path.

I'm still not clear if you can take relief from a part of an obstruction interfering with your shot without taking relief from the entire obstruction. There doesn't seem to be anything about it in the decision book.

I recall a rules dealie a number of years ago which might have involved Craig Stadler. He had a ball in a bad spot and was going to have to kneel down to hit. Naturally he wanted to preserve his pants so he put a golf towel down under his kneel point.

Made the shot and went on his way. Nothing happened.

Later on he was penalized a stroke for "...improving his lie". Apparently someone watching on TV emailed his unofficial ruling to the rules people who agreed with him.